The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum 'Catholocism and Fundamentalism' by Karl Keating

Not really. In the first place, Irenaeus certainly did not espouse Transubstantiation (he did consider the Lord's Supper to be a sacrifice of some sort). In the second place, his statements regarding the Lord's Supper are frequently pulled out of context and made to mean something they don't; probably any quote you see from his book, Against Heresies, has to do, not with the so-called "Real Presence," but with the inconsistencies of the Gnostics who offer the created things of the Lord's Supper up to Christ, who the Gnostics believed was not the Creator. In the third place, the ECF are no more monolithic on this point than on any other point, and the RCC sees fit to pick and choose whichever statements of whichever ECF serve their purposes best--which is just they same way they handle Holy Writ.


First of all, if we want to be "literal," we have to realize that the Lord's words in John 6 were not spoken concerning the Lord's Supper, which hadn't even been instituted yet. Second, one ought always to read what Christ spoke to His disciples immediately after His teaching on eating His flesh and drinking His blood: "Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (John 6:61-63). So I ask the Roman apologist, how does he understand this "literally"? Moreover, shall we understand Jesus' to be speaking "literally" when He says that He is the door--I mean, is His body really a door made out of wood, and is the Lord's Supper really transformed into wood?

So don't be intimidated by Roman foolishness. There are plenty of resources out there, and you can even find many of the ECF writings online to read for yourself. But remember that no man trumps the authority of Scripture. There's a lot worthwhile in the ECF, but also a lot that is unbiblical.